5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Economy
'Maybe Trump’s Neighbors Know Something He Doesn’t': Palm Beach County, Home to Mar-a-Lago, Passes Data Center Moratorium
Trump has said that communities that don't want data centers "want to end up being backwards and poor."
Sep 25, 2026
President Donald Trump has said every American should want a data center in their town. But his home county in Florida just voted to block them.
In a 6-0 vote, commissioners in Palm Beach County—home to the president's luxurious private club and second residence, Mar-a-Lago—voted to enact a one-year moratorium on the construction of new "large-scale" data centers that use at least 50 megawatts of power.
The moratorium, approved on Thursday, came after Palm Beach residents expressed concerns shared by Americans around the country who’ve seen data centers move into their communities. Palm Beach already has some smaller data centers. But in July, it rejected a proposal for the 600MW Project Tango, following warnings about its potential effects on local wetlands and on families’ pocketbooks.
"Many communities want the economic benefits that data centers bring, but we all fear the higher power bills, the negative environmental impact, disruptive noise, and the depletion of water resources," explained one supporter of the moratorium at a county commission meeting on Thursday, according to the local ABC affiliate.
A poll conducted last month by Embold Research and published by Heatmap Pro found that 75% of Americans now oppose the building of AI data centers in their area, including 61% who registered strong opposition. Aversion to data centers crosses party lines, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents viewing them negatively.
As AI companies spend tens of millions bankrolling Trump and Republican candidates, members of the president's Cabinet, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, have scoffed at Americans' concerns about the tremendous water and energy use of data centers, which have been well documented as jacking up utility prices.
In a social media post last month, Trump himself said the only reason communities would not want a data center nearby is if they "want to end up being backwards and poor." Before that, he said that "smart communities" were "begging for them."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has become one of Capitol Hill's leading critics of data centers and the artificial intelligence models they power, has said that if Trump truly finds data centers so desirable, he should “lead by example” by having his friend and megadonor, tech billionaire Elon Musk, build one at Mar-a-Lago.
"Trump says communities that oppose data centers will end up 'backwards' and 'poor,'" Sanders remarked Friday on social media. "Yesterday, Mar-a-Lago’s own Palm Beach County passed a year-long ban on these facilities."
"Maybe," the senator said, "Trump’s neighbors know something he doesn’t."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Is the President Telling the Truth?' Sanders Corners Trump FDA Nominee on His Bogus Drug Price Claims
"Wow! The American people are so excited to know now that!" US Sen. Bernie Sanders sarcastically said of Trump's false prescription drugs claim.
Sep 24, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday grilled President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the US Food and Drug Administration about the president's false claims about the price of prescription drugs in the US.
During a Senate confirmation hearing, Sanders (I-Vt.) asked Dr. Heidi Overton about Trump's boast at this year's State of the Union address about giving Americans the cheapest medications of any country in the world.
“President Trump has claimed... that he took prescription drugs from the highest price in the entire world to the lowest,” Sanders said in an incredulous tone.
“Wow!" he continued sarcastically. "The American people are so excited to know now that we pay the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs.”
BERNIE SANDERS: Trump claims we pay the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Wow! Is the president telling the truth?
FDA NOMINEE HEIDI OVERTON: There has been immense progress--
SANDERS: Do we pay the lowest prices like the president said? You just told us you… pic.twitter.com/X7gWNbSmik
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 24, 2026
"What do you think?" Sanders asked Overton. "Are we paying the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs?"
"Senator... there has been immense progress, especially on individual products," Overton replied. "Right now, 89% of branded drugs have signed agreements to lower their prices and make that available..."
Sanders at this point interjected.
"Do we pay the lowest prices?" he asked. "The president said it. He's your boss... He just said we pay the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs. It's true or it's not true. Is it true?"
"Senator, we have seen..." Overton began.
"Is it true that we pay the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs, as President Trump has said?" Sanders persisted.
"So, senator, the results that we have seen for the American people... have dropped prices," she replied. "And right now [the Consumer Price Index] says that, for the first time in 60 years, prescription drug prices have gone down by 3%."
"Which may have something to do with the legislation that we passed several years ago," said Sanders, in reference to provisions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that granted Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices for certain prescription drugs.
Even if Trump's policies were solely responsible for a 3% drop in drug prices, that would not make them the lowest in the world by any stretch of the imagination.
A 2024 study from the RAND Corporation found that Americans pay nearly three times as much for prescription drugs compared to the rest of the world.
Sanders' office last year released a report showing that, during the first year of Trump's second term, drug companies raised prices on 688 medications, with a median increase of 5.5%.
Trump has a long history of making false claims about reducing prescription drug costs, and has even said that he has slashed them by as much as 600%, which would mean that pharmaceutical companies are paying consumers to take their medications.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Dangerous for Democracy': Paramount Merger Opponents File Emergency Motion to Fight Settlement Deal
"We believe the consent decree fails to meaningfully address or mitigate the harms that will be caused by this monopoly merger."
Sep 24, 2026
Update (1:40 pm ET):
A coalition of advocacy groups fighting the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger said Thursday that the judge overseeing the case granted their emergency motion to allow opponents of the combination to file briefs against a settlement reached earlier this week by Paramount and a dozen state attorneys general.
“The consent decree the state AGs agreed to in a backroom deal is weak, unenforceable, and leaves workers, journalists, and consumers in the dust," members of the anti-merger coalition said in a statement. "The settlement fails to address the grave dangers this merger poses—and no amount of spin can change that. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín’s ruling will allow the public to weigh in on this important issue and ensure the interests of those who will actually pay the price for the Ellisons’ sweetheart deal that the AGs failed to adequately represent are heard. We look forward to explaining that in further detail in our brief due at midnight tonight."
Earlier:
Opponents of Paramount's proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery filed an emergency motion in federal court on Thursday asking the judge overseeing the merger proceedings to grant them an opportunity to formally oppose a settlement deal that Paramount reached earlier this week with a coalition of state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta.
The merger opponents' filing asks Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the US District Court for the Northern District of California to give them "an opportunity to be heard" before she rules on the proposed consent decree between Paramount and the 12 state attorneys general—a deal that drew widespread outrage. The anti-merger coalition—which includes Free Press, the Committee for the First Amendment, the Future Film Coalition, and other groups—described the tentative deal as "dangerous for democracy."
The coalition's filing was submitted shortly before a court hearing that's scheduled to begin at 2:00 pm ET. Martínez-Olguín set the hearing to "address certain outstanding questions regarding the factual and legal underpinnings of the parties’ proposed consent decree."
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a constitutional rights litigator who serves on the steering panel for the Committee for the First Amendment, said in a statement that "we believe the consent decree fails to meaningfully address or mitigate the harms that will be caused by this monopoly merger to the entertainment industry, diverse storytelling, independent filmmaking, consumer interests, a free press, First Amendment rights, and fundamentally, democracy."
“It does not serve to benefit anyone except the owner family of Paramount and those holding political power, who will use this corporate consolidation as a proxy force for First Amendment suppression of disfavored expression and viewpoints," Verheyden-Hilliard added.
Paramount is headed by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the richest people in the world and a megadonor to President Donald Trump.
If Martínez-Olguín approves the proposed consent decree and the merger is finalized, Paramount would control both CBS and CNN, as well as other major media properties such as HBO.
As part of the consent decree, Paramount committed to "News Editorial Independence Boards" for CBS and CNN comprised of five "established journalists." Critics, including the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), have characterized the proposed editorial independence boards as "worthless" and a potential "First Amendment nightmare."
“The solution for the Ellisons letting Donald Trump and [Federal Communications Commission Chair] Brendan Carr police journalism is not to let attorneys general and judges police journalism too,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at FPF, part of the anti-merger coalition.
“It’s to keep the government out of the newsroom, period," Stern added. "No one seriously believes the Ellisons (or their rumored new investor Elon Musk) will do that, with or without a self-appointed sham editorial board, which is why this merger cannot proceed.”
The League of United Latin American Citizens and a group of religious leaders filed a separate motion on Thursday asking Martínez-Olguín to "defer entry of the decree" to "ensure this court has sufficient opportunity to consider the important issues raised" in the case.
"The proposed consent decree raises grave doubts whether the parties' settlement adequately addresses the harms alleged in the plaintiff states' complaint," the filing reads.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Historic': Seattle Passes First City Ban on AI-Enabled Surveillance Pricing
"The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are. Mayor Wilson and the City Council have made Seattle a leader on protecting shoppers from unfair grocery pricing tactics," one advocate said.
Sep 23, 2026
Seattle became the first city in the country to ban surveillance pricing on Tuesday afternoon after the City Council voted 7-2 to approve a measure co-sponsored and championed by progressive Mayor Katie Wilson.
The Fair Pricing and Transparency policy bans big retail outlets—both online and brick-and-mortar—from using customer data such as race, gender, employment status, internet or social media history, and conversations with chatbots to charge different shoppers different prices for the same products.
“Food is an essential good that’s getting more expensive all the time,” Wilson said in a statement celebrating the win. “People have been clear: They don’t want their data fed into algorithms that decide how much they pay at the grocery store. Everyone deserves transparent pricing and equal treatment, not hidden systems that charge some shoppers more than others.”
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in."
Surveillance pricing is the practice of feeding shopper data to artificial intelligence, which then sets distinct prices for different customers based on what the AI thinks they can afford. A 2025 investigation from Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative, and More Perfect Union found that the practice could add $1,200 a year to the average Seattle family’s grocery bill.
“This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off,” former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on social media in response to the news.
Seattle just became the first city in America to ban grocery stores from engaging in surveillance pricing.
This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off.
Watch former FTC Chair Lina Khan explain. pic.twitter.com/TxAJGFy7H2
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) September 23, 2026
Grace Gedye, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, said in a statement: “Nobody should pay more for basic necessities because a data broker is quietly collecting information about what they’re searching for online, what they hover over, what their income is, or where they go. The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are. Mayor Wilson and the City Council have made Seattle a leader on protecting shoppers from unfair grocery pricing tactics with this bill. We commend this work.”
The Seattle ordinance comes amid an ongoing affordability crisis as grocery prices spike while President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have slashed the budget of crucial federal programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). At the same time, there is a growing national backlash against AI and Big Tech, with 78% of Americans favoring mandatory regulation of the technology. The ban on surveillance pricing follows a data center moratorium passed by the Seattle City Council in June.
Maya Morales, the founder of WA People’s Privacy and one of the organizers mobilizing grassroots support for the measure, told Common Dreams that harder day-to-day living conditions were leading to a "national shift” in awareness of how Big Tech and Big Retail make life even more difficult, likely enabling a major tech city like Seattle to take a stand against surveillance pricing.
“People are feeling the heat very intensely all over the nation, so in many ways it doesn't surprise me that this would be the moment that we could get this done, because the harms are so obvious,” she said.
Progressive City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, another co-sponsor of and key advocate for the bill, also emphasized the importance of food security.
“Groceries are getting more expensive for everyday Seattleites, while the buying, selling, and leveraging our private information to manipulate prices is making big national grocery corporations millions in profit,” Rinck said in a statement. “This legislation is intended to put some guardrails on what big businesses can do with our personal information. At a time when SNAP reductions have rocked our community and people have less to spend on food, this is an important step we can take to prevent AI-assisted price gouging and ensure fair discounts for everyone.”
The measure was also co-sponsored by Councilmembers Dionne Foster and Rob Saka and backed by labor and community groups including WA People’s Privacy, Washington Working Families Party, Transit Riders Union, Lavender Rights Project, Queer Power Alliance, Washington Fair Trade Coalition, The Nexus of Privacy, MLK Labor, Consumer Reports, and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) 3000.
Grocery workers supported the measure in part because they would be likely to take the brunt of customer complaints if a shopper sees that they are being charged differently than the person next to them at the self checkout. They were also concerned about their own food bills remaining affordable.
“Passing the strongest ban on AI-powered price gouging on groceries feels historic,” Seattle grocery store worker Kristen Wilder said in a statement. “My coworkers and the customers we serve proudly stood together to stop the grocery industry from imposing this scheme here in Seattle. Today that worked paid off for families who just want to know they’re paying a fair price and for workers who want to focus on customer service instead of defending some algorithm making decisions in a black box.”
In addition to fighting food insecurity, Morales emphasized that the measure “takes a little bit of a crack” at the privacy violations enabled by AI and embraced at the federal level as a way of targeting people of color, immigrants, sex workers, low-income and LGBTQ+ people, and other vulnerable groups.
“AI harms are generally privacy and surveillance harms,” Morales said, because “AI needs data in order to work. Mass commercial data surveillance is the reason we have AI and vice versa, and that is an infinite loop.”
However, from a privacy standpoint Morales said there was one disappointing aspect of the bill: an amendment passed to specify that nothing in the law prohibited “technology used solely for security, loss prevention, safety, fraud prevention, fraud detection, or compliance with law.” Morales said this provision was unnecessary because the bill’s language had been very clear that it was focused on pricing. She was also concerned it could open up loopholes, as it is difficult to prove a given technology is only being used for one purpose, and a grocery store might then be able to introduce an invasive surveillance technology—such as shopping baskets that track customers—under the guise of fighting shoplifting.
Because of that amendment, Morales told Common Dreams, “we managed to get a privacy win on pricing but not a privacy win at the grocery store.”
That said, five other corporate “bill-gutting” amendments were voted down, which Morales called a “spectacular win,” and the overall bill was itself an important victory.
Both Morales, and Jon of The Nexus of Privacy, credited the bill’s strength and ability to resist watering down in part to Wilson, who worked with stakeholders including smaller grocery outlets, labor, and community groups to build a coalition and write a strong ordinance from the get-go. Morales noted that Wilson came to office from an organizing background, and that she and Rinck did a good job of bringing grassroots organizations into the process to secure a victory, allowing Seattle policymakers to counter powerful local technology and retail interests.
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in,” Morales said.
There is now hope that the bill would have statewide and even national implications. A surveillance pricing ban was introduced into the Washington Legislature in 2026 but failed to advance.
Morales said a legislative win at the local level can show state lawmakers: "This can be done. You don’t have to cave to the Big Retail and Tech lobby, and you can protect people.”
On a national level, Jon of The Nexus of Privacy wrote:
This huge win will help organizers in other cities and states... across the country. Industry had killed a surveillance pricing bill in California just a couple of weeks ago, and they've stalled New York's surveillance pricing bill for months... but guess what, they're not invincible! And as well as the strong legislation providing... a model of what's possible, the Seattle coalition's very successful tactics can hopefully be adapted by organizers elsewhere to reflect the dynamics wherever they are.
As Morales told Common Dreams, “I hope every city will pass something like this.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Critics Warn Trump-Backed Diesel Export Ban Could Further Drive US Economy Into the Ground
"The proposed diesel export ban is a short-sighted 'America First' response to a global crisis his reckless war helped create."
Sep 23, 2026
In an effort to blunt price hikes from his war with Iran, President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing a 90-day ban on diesel exports from the United States.
The cost of diesel—which is used to power semitrucks, trains, construction and farm equipment, and other large machines—has soared since Trump launched the war at the end of February, prompting Iran to restrict oil shipments through the critical Strait of Hormuz.
As of Wednesday, according to the American Automobile Association, average US diesel prices have jumped to $6.52 per gallon, a 77% increase from last year. Over the past month, as Trump has ramped up hostilities with Iran, prices have risen by 91 cents a gallon, a 16.2% increase.
Heightened diesel prices increase the cost of everything else—including food, transportation, and other energy sources. And while Trump claimed earlier this month to be bringing prices "way down, way, way down,” the latest federal data show consumer prices rising 0.4% in August—four times July’s monthly increase—and 3.4% over the past year.
With the midterms less than two months away and many voters blaming Trump for the strain on their pocketbooks, several GOP members of Congress, including some facing tough Senate races, such as Sen. Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Rep. Ashley Hinson (Iowa), have cheered the idea.
During a press conference on Tuesday, Trump told reporters: "I’ve said let’s not send out the diesel. We make a lot of diesel. It could have a little bit of an effect on regular automobile gasoline because when you do that, you know, it’s a sort of a flow. It’s a balance. But no, I’ve called for it. I’ve called for it within my people. I’ve been talking about it.”
But while the plan may help to keep diesel prices down for long enough to help Republicans stop the bleeding before November, some economists are warning that it could make things much worse in the long term.
“The US Gulf Coast would get a temporary pump price dip, at the cost of likely higher coastal prices [elsewhere] and eventually, higher prices for everyone as investment gets scared away," explained Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group and a former White House energy adviser under the administration of former President George W. Bush.
"You would get a short-term, abrupt collapse in pump prices” in some regions, McNally said, but “the US would shatter its reputation as a safe place to invest for a generation.”
Energy economist Philip Verleger said that a ban, even if temporary, "would have the same long-term effect as President [Richard] Nixon’s soybean embargo: the world would no longer view the United States as a dependable source.”
Speaking to Reuters, Verleger warned that in an already undersupplied market, removing US barrels could potentially double global prices.
But the short term seems to be all Trump and those around him pushing the ban are considering. An oil industry executive who discussed the proposed ban with White House officials told Politico that Trump viewed any fallout as “a December problem.”
He said that "cooler heads" in the White House have been "overpowered" by the "political camp" that has a "sky-is-falling, we-have-to-do-something concern about prices at the pump."
Lorne Stockman, research director at Oil Change International, argued that there was a much simpler solution: ending the war that has caused oil prices to spike in the first place.
"The proposed diesel export ban is a short-sighted 'America First' response to a global crisis his reckless war helped create," Stockman said. "The US exports about 5% of global diesel, and a ban risks turning a severe shortage into a global economic disaster."
"It could send international prices soaring, drive up the cost of food, fertilizer, and essential goods, deepen hunger, and push already-struggling economies toward recession," he continued. "At the same time, it would likely do nothing for people in the US, as refineries would cut production and gasoline prices would rise even further."
He said, "Congress should use its constitutional powers to stop Trump’s war, tax the oil industry’s soaring windfall profits, and support farmers and other hard-hit sectors, and accelerate renewable energy and electrification, not hoard fuel and force the rest of the world to pay the price.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
How Greedy Corporations Are Weaponizing AI to 'Squeeze' Consumers and Working Class Families
"It's another attack on household budgets that add up, and which working people certainly shouldn’t be on the hook for."
Sep 23, 2026
A report released on Wednesday by Groundwork Collaborative and Reset Tech details how corporate America and assorted nefarious actors are using artificial intelligence to gouge US consumers.
The report begins by noting that while AI is "often promoted as a technology that will boost productivity, reduce costs, and improve efficiency," the reality so far is that it is "enabling new forms of fraud, expanding surveillance-based pricing, and increasing costs for essential services such as health insurance, transportation, and electricity."
As one example of how AI is hurting consumers, the report highlights AI's role in helping health insurers more rapidly deny claims, even as many physicians have expressed concerns about the technology's accuracy.
"AI adjudication tools like UnitedHealth’s nH Predict have been accused of often erroneously denying needed care, hoping that patients and providers don’t take the time to appeal," the report notes. "A recent lawsuit alleges that the 0.2% of patients who do appeal win about nine times out of ten, reversing the AI-powered tool’s denial."
On the other side of the coin, AI-powered medical scribes used by healthcare providers have been found to bill insurers for procedures more complex or expensive than the services that were actually delivered. The report points to a recent analysis conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which found that AI-powered tools are now one of the top drivers of medical inflation in the US.
Groundwork Collaborative and Reset Tech also document how AI allows companies to implement surveillance pricing systems, which use customers' personal data to determine how much they should be charged for a given product or service to maximize the amount of revenue generated per sale.
According to the report, data brokers collect and analyze data taken from internet users and then sell their findings to corporations who can use that knowledge to create detailed profiles of individual consumers.
One area where this kind of pricing is increasingly being used is in the car insurance industry, which thanks to modern technology has vastly more information about drivers' habits than ever before.
"This information—known as telematics—includes speed, braking patterns, acceleration, and location tracking," the report explains. "Insurers analyze this information with AI to assess risk and set personalized premiums. While this may reward some safe drivers, it can also lead to higher premiums and be used to deny coverage entirely."
The report finds that airlines have also been using customers' information to create a dynamic pricing system that charges different fares based on "demand, search activity, booking patterns, and other consumer data."
Rishi Bharwani, US director of Reset Tech and co-author of the report, said that elected officials need to wake up to how cutting-edge technology is being used to gouge consumers with what he described as "a hidden tax on households."
"Families feel it every day, even if they can’t see it," Bharwani explained. "Lawmakers need to act now to stop greedy corporations from using AI to squeeze consumers."
Janelle Jones, senior fellow at Groundwork Collaborative and report co-author, noted that AI pricing is becoming more popular even as families across the US are struggling to afford basics such as food and energy.
"As working people face an affordability crisis, higher prices caused by AI are the last thing they need," Jones said. "It's another attack on household budgets that add up, and which working people certainly shouldn’t be on the hook for."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Paltry Concessions Given to Secure Paramount-Warner Merger Deal Decried as 'Meaningless Bullshit'
"Billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top," said one critic.
Sep 22, 2026
"A settlement that promises less than nothing."
That's how one critic of Paramount Skydance's planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on Tuesday described the paltry concessions extracted by Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state officials to enable the proposed $111 billion media megamerger.
Critics argue that the proposed settlement agreement lacks meaningful antitrust enforcement and hands control of major news and entertainment properties to a billionaire family closely aligned with President Donald Trump.
“Every! single! one! of these concessions is meaningless bullshit,” writer Cory Doctorow said Tuesday on Medium. “Bonta just handed the American movie and TV sector to two of the most odious creeps to draw breath, surrendering without firing a shot."
The settlement, which was announced Monday, clears a major roadblock to Paramount CEO David Ellison's takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN, HBO, Warner Bros. Pictures, and numerous cable networks. The combined company would control nearly 30% of both US theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing.
The agreement contains a pledge to distribute at least 30 films annually for the first two years, then 32 movies each year after, invest hundreds of millions of dollars in US film production, maintain existing theater rental terms for three years, not sell Paramount and Warner Bros. studio lots for five years, and create an editorial independence board for CBS News and CNN.
In a Monday Substack post, American Economic Liberties Project research director Matt Stoller pointed out an apparent loophole in the settlement's film distribution requirement.
“They only have to distribute that many films,” he wrote. “They can make half as many. And those can be co-produced. So in fact, if you add up the numbers, Ellison promised to make fewer films going forward than Paramount and Warner are putting out today."
The settlement's editorial oversight board for CBS News and CNN have also come under fire. The five-member board overseeing the two entities will be appointed and paid by the combined company. Reuters reported Tuesday that the board would have no explicit investigative authority and that the company would be empowered to fill vacancies.
“As we learned from the failed and widely panned Facebook oversight board, a fake bipartisan oversight committee won’t save CNN,” Jessica González, the co-chief executive of the advocacy organization Free Press, said Monday. “We have all the evidence we need from the Ellisons’ destruction of CBS about what they do to warp journalism at Donald Trump’s request.”
David Ellison's father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison, is a Republican megadonor.
Seth Stern, a media attorney and chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said that "it's unclear how the attorneys general or courts can constitutionally hold Paramount accountable for the board's actions or inaction without themselves interfering in content."
Stoller noted that the agreement's force-majeure clause, which would reportedly allow Paramount-Warner to dodge its commitments in the event of economic recessions, strikes, and other labor disruptions.
Other opponents of the proposed deal bristle at the Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Saudi and Emirati investment in the new company that would be created if the merger is approved.
Alvaro Bedoya, a senior adviser to the American Economic Liberties Project, lamented that “today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top."
“Layoffs will follow. People from [Los Angeles] to Atlanta will lose their jobs, small businesses will lose their contracts, your cable bill and movie ticket will be even more expensive,” he continued. “Dissent against money and power will be even harder to find.”
“This did not have to happen," Bedoya stressed. "Thanks to an extraordinary outpouring of grassroots anger against the merger, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block it. They beat Paramount in court, winning a court-ordered pause on the merger, and beat them again at the negotiating table, getting the conglomerate to agree to pause the merger until as late as next June.”
“But the Ellison family does not care about the law. Instead, they loudly threatened to leave California if their merger did not go through immediately," he added. "[Gov.] Gavin Newsom caved to that pressure. So did [former state Attorney General] Xavier Becerra. And eventually, so did Attorney General Rob Bonta, agreeing to a weak settlement that will be exceedingly difficult to enforce.”
Stoller said that "there are a bunch of reasons they cleared the deal, such as threats to move the studio out of California, corruption, and general incompetence."
"I personally think CNN is terrible, and I’m glad it’s going to be discredited," Stoller wrote. "I also find it embarrassing that the Democratic AGs used antitrust law in an attempt to shade news coverage. But it’s downright comical they demanded that David Ellison not corrupt CNN by having David Ellison appoint a board ensuring that David Ellison not do that."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Good Luck With That': Critics Mock Trump for Hyping 'Deal' With Belarus to Replace Canadian Fertilizer
"Canada exports more potash to the US than Belarus produces."
Sep 21, 2026
President Donald Trump drew ridicule on Monday when he announced he was working on an agreement to import potash, an important fertilizer for US farmers, from Belarus.
In a social media post, Trump claimed that the "massive deal" with Belarus would let the US import potash for "substantially less than we are currently paying to Canada," which he described as "very good news for our Farmers and Ranchers."
Canada supplies roughly 80% of all potash used by US farmers, and Trump's trade war against America's largest trading partner has been putting upward pressure the prices of all Canadian imports.
However, even if Trump's deal to buy potash from Belarus comes to fruition, it is unclear how much relief it would provide to US farmers, who have been also been paying a heavy price his illegal war with Iran, which has led to record-high diesel fuel prices.
As noted by a Monday report from Bloomberg, Belarus in 2021 only shipped around 700,000 tons of potassium fertilizers to the US before trade with the nation was restricted following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Canada, meanwhile, supplied the US with more than 10 million tons of such fertilizers last year.
Bloomberg also pointed out that "Belarus doesn’t have enough capacity to supply large volumes to the US" at the moment "because production for the year is already under contract."
There are also several logistical challenges to shipping large quantities of fertilizer from Belarus.
Oil market researcher Rory Johnston observed in a social media post that Belarus is a landlocked country with no easy way to export its products to the west after Lithuania terminated its transit agreement with the country at the start of the Ukraine conflict.
Canada, Johnston added, is "right next door."
Journalist Diana Henriques offered a similar assessment of the challenges of importing potash from Belarus.
"It is 5,080 miles from Nebraska to Minsk," Henriques wrote. "It is about 700 miles from Nebraska to Saskatchewan, the source of most Canadian potash. That's gonna have to be one heckuva discount to cover the transportation differential."
Ross O'Connor, former foreign affairs and national security advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was openly dismissive of Trump's Belarus gambit.
"Good luck with that," O'Connor wrote. "Canada exports more potash to the US than Belarus produces."
David Ryan Miller, professor of government at American University, offered a satirical summary of Trump's latest geopolitical maneuver.
"We are spurning our longtime democratic ally directly to our north in favor of an autocratic regime aligned with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin that is 4,000+ miles away," Miller wrote. "We are very smart, serious people!"
Keep Reading
Show Less
‘Massive Betrayal’: Fury at Newsom and Bonta Over Merger Deal With Paramount
"Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top."
Sep 21, 2026
A coalition of state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta reportedly reached a deal on Monday to let Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery proceed, an outcome that press freedom advocates and antitrust campaigners condemned as a disaster for journalism, entertainment industry workers, and American democracy.
The deal, which is set to be formally announced later Monday, will pave the way for the creation of one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, helmed by the son of a billionaire megadonor to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
If the merger is finalized, the resulting media behemoth would control nearly 30% of both wide-release theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing in the US. The combination would also put CNN under Ellison's control, heightening press freedom concerns that have intensified since Paramount's takeover of CBS.
"The AGs’ capitulation marks a new low."
“Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top,” Alvaro Bedoya, senior adviser at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement. “As a result, a billionaire media conglomerate closely allied with the president will soon own one of its closest rivals, including some of the nation’s most critical news outlets. Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund will co-own those outlets, too.”
Bedoya criticized Bonta and California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who privately pushed the state attorney general's office to settle the lawsuit out of court. Xavier Becerra, the frontrunner to succeed Newsom, also called for a settlement, citing Paramount's threat to leave California if its proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. was blocked.
“People want champions who are not afraid of rich bullies. Newsom, Becerra, and Bonta did not meet that mark," said Bedoya. "The people who work in the film and TV industry and the small businesses who support it will suffer as a result. And so will everyone who values dissent in our democracy.”
Jessica González, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, also denounced Bonta for reneging on "his promise to enforce the law and protect consumers and workers."
"Hundreds of thousands of people called on our state AGs to stand up to the Ellisons, who have engaged in a campaign of corruption and extortion to pave the way for this unlawful merger. We can no longer rely on the federal government to enforce the law and protect regular people. That much is clear. But the AGs’ capitulation marks a new low. It’s a sad day for all of us who have been opposing this merger because it will cut jobs and raise prices, all as it consolidates the media even more to enable authoritarians."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, an outspoken opponent of the merger who was subjected to what critics called a corporate "smear campaign" because of his stance, trained his ire on California's governor in response to news of the settlement.
"Gavin Newsom hands huge win to Trump and his billionaire cronies," Ruffalo wrote on social media.
The trial was scheduled to begin in March of next year. In its original lawsuit against the proposed merger—filed shortly after the Trump Justice Department dropped its investigation of the proposed purchase—the coalition of 12 attorneys general warned the deal would "combine two of Hollywood’s five major film distributors and two of the five major basic cable channel owners, extinguishing competition between Paramount and Warner Bros. and inflicting substantial harm on movie theaters, basic cable distributors and, ultimately, audiences nationwide."
The settlement deal reached Monday also reportedly includes the lawsuit filed by the Writers Guild of America, which represents TV screenwriters and others in the entertainment industry.
Bloomberg reported that the attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, and other states that had pushed back during settlement talks were able to secure "independent editorial boards for CBS and CNN as part of the deal"—though it's unclear how such boards would function.
"The terms are said to include a financial penalty if the company fails to make good on a promise to distribute 30 films per year in theaters," Bloomberg added.
This news is deeply disappointing and a massive betrayal of everyday workers and small businesses.
David Ellison is willing to make big promises, like 30 films a year, because he knows he doesn't actually have to stand by it.
We've seen it before with past mergers: Promises… https://t.co/yAYXusKiRM
— American Economic Liberties Project (@econliberties) September 21, 2026
The Los Angeles Times noted that Paramount's purchase of Warner Bros. "will be heavily leveraged."
"The company’s bankers have lined up nearly $80 billion in debt to finance the merger. [Paramount CEO David] Ellison’s father, billionaire Larry Ellison, late last year agreed to backstop the $47-billion in equity needed to complete the acquisition. Royal families from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to chip in $24 billion for an equity stake by assuming some of Ellison’s financial commitments."
González of Free Press warned Monday that "consolidating the media in the hands of friendly oligarchs is right out of the authoritarian playbook."
“What’s exceedingly clear is that our laws and our political system are not strong enough to resist the pressure and manipulation of corrupt billionaires," said González. "We need to strengthen democratic systems of government, including getting money out of politics, and pass laws that break up big media conglomerates. We need to ensure that a few billionaires can’t drown out the masses to dictate bad policy.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
After OpenAI Cyberattack, UN Panel Warns Current Guardrails Are 'Unraveling'
"We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it," one expert said.
Sep 21, 2026
As warnings from within the artificial intelligence community fuel growing worldwide calls for regulations on AI, a panel established by the United Nations General Assembly stressed Monday that "the traditional model of safeguarding is unraveling."
On the eve of the first day of the assembly's high-level general debate, the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence released a thematic brief that points to one of several recently revealed incidents involving the rapidly advancing technology that have led to people around the world demanding swift action from policymakers.
In July, ChatGPT maker OpenAI disclosed what it called "an unprecedented cyber incident," explaining that its AI agents autonomously breached the systems of the prominent open-source platform Hugging Face during internal testing.
The first brief from the panel of experts—titled "AI Agents, Misalignment, and Loss of Human Control Risks: Evidence from the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident"—focuses on "the emergence of goals that contradict the user's intentions when AI systems plan and carry out multistep tasks."
"A traditional AI system (not goal-seeking) may give a wrong answer because it lacks knowledge, misunderstands a request, or makes a random mistake," the report explains. "Such failures can often be reduced by improving competence or correcting a specific fault."
"A harder problem arises when a capable system's actions consistently work together to achieve a goal that conflicts with the user's intentions (called misalignment)," the brief continues. "In this case, improving the AI system's planning and problem-solving does not address this failure and can instead strengthen the unwanted behavior because the system can better optimize a bad objective which would otherwise be extremely unlikely to result from random mistakes due to AI incompetence."
OpenAI's Hugging Face incident "provides a documented example of this second pattern," the publication notes. "The agents collectively pursued a goal that developers had not assigned: 'cheating' on an evaluation and going to extreme lengths to conceal the evidence. In doing so, they pursued intermediate goals such as escaping their restricted testing environment to access the internet. As a consequence, these agents gained access to real-world systems."
Yoshua Bengio, the panel's co-chair, highlighted in a statement that "researchers have long warned that three conditions could lead to loss of control: a misaligned goal, the capability to pursue it, and an environment that allows it."
"This summer, all three came together in a real system, not a laboratory," he said. "Since this is not an isolated observation of misaligned goals, this raises serious questions about the way AI agents are currently trained."
This incident, the brief says, "exposed failures in several layers at once: network isolation, credential handling, monitoring, and response. The incident illustrates why several layers of safeguards need to be combined."
The good news is, "we are not starting from zero," said panel member Qinghua Lu. "Aviation, medicine, and cybersecurity learned to manage high-risk systems through incident reporting, independent scrutiny, and layered safeguards. But those practices may not be enough as AI agents become more capable, autonomous, and difficult to monitor."
"We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it, and ensure these protections remain effective as agents' capabilities grow," she emphasized. "We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Nobel-Winning Economists Say California Billionaire Tax Could Be ‘Turning Point in the Battle Between Democracy and Oligarchy’
“What will allow California to thrive in the future," the economists said, "is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: it is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth."
Sep 21, 2026
As California voters head to the polls this November, their vote on whether to enact a first-of-its-kind billionaire wealth tax may mark "a turning point in the battle between democracy and oligarchy," says a group of Nobel Prize-winning economists.
The fight over Proposition 40—a ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of those with $1 billion or more in order to fund the state's healthcare system—has heated up in recent weeks.
The initiative remains popular, with 52% of voters in the state supporting it, according to a poll out last week. But California's elite have lined up at least $156 million behind an aggressive campaign to kill it, with Google co-founder Sergey Brin alone giving at least $102 million.
And while the proposal has strong backing from progressive politicians and labor unions, some prominent Democrats have tried to stop it, most notably Gov. Gavin Newsom.
As the rich flood the airwaves with ads warning that taxing their wealth would bring about economic ruin, six Nobel laureates, all of whom have won the prestigious prize for their work in economics, signed an open letter on Saturday endorsing Prop. 40.
They are inequality scholar Daron Acemoglu, global poverty researcher Abhijit Banerjee, labor and public finance economist Peter Diamond, anti-poverty economist Esther Duflo, trade economist and columnist Paul Krugman, and inequality and globalization economist Joseph Stiglitz.
"Proposition 40 would be the first-ever tax on billionaire wealth enacted anywhere in the world," the economists wrote. "California is the right place to take this historic step."
They explained that the growing number of billionaires in the state in recent decades has helped to make California "one of the most unequal places in America." While the state's richest 0.001% of residents were worth a combined $700 billion a decade ago, its 250 billionaires are now worth about $2.3 trillion—equivalent to the entire annual income of the state's 20 million taxpayers.
"This extreme wealth has translated into extraordinary power," the economists wrote, citing data showing that during the 2024 election, billionaires accounted for 19% of all federal election spending in the US and that these same billionaires are now marshaling huge sums of money to oppose a tax that would affect them.
While acknowledging that many of California's wealthiest have "made important contributions, for which they have been amply rewarded," the researchers noted their use of loopholes in the tax system to effectively pay a lower tax rate than the average Californian.
Most billionaire wealth is held in the form of stocks and other assets whose gains are not generally subject to income tax until they are sold.
As a result, billionaires in the state paid about $3 billion in state income taxes per year from 2019-25, while their fortunes increased by about $1.4 trillion over the period. Dividing total state income tax by that increase equals roughly 1.6%. Meanwhile, the average California family pays about 5-6% of their annual income in state income taxes.
The economists argued that enacting a wealth tax would allow the state to play "catch-up," raising about $100 billion—enough to offset federal cuts to the state's Medicaid program enacted in the Republican budget legislation last year, which have helped to fuel thousands of layoffs at hospitals around the state.
They also disputed a common counterargument that the tax will spur billionaire flight from the state and "doom" Silicon Valley.
Not only would the tax apply to any billionaire living in the state as of January 1, 2026, meaning most would not have had time to relocate; they also pointed out that in 2026, after Prop. 40 was announced, California has attracted 80% of the nation's venture capital funding, compared to just 50% prior to 2025, according to data from PitchBook's Venture Monitor.
“What will allow California to thrive in the future," the economists said, "is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: It is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth to which it is only fair to ask the ultrawealthy to contribute.”
They added that passing Prop. 40 "isn’t just critical for Californians," but could "kickstart a movement to tax ultra-high-net-worth individuals in other states—and eventually at the federal level and in other countries."
The six Nobel laureates who signed Saturday's letter are not the first prominent economists to publicly advocate for the wealth tax. University of California, Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez helped draft the proposal, while Gabriel Zucman, a chaired professor at the Paris School of Economics, has conducted research underpinning it. Paris School professor Thomas Piketty and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich have also come out in support of the ballot initiative.
Responding to the letter from the Nobel laureates, Dutch historian and wealth tax advocate Rutger Bregman—whose School for Moral Ambition has worked alongside Zucman to promote similar initiatives around the world—said it was "really great to see" more celebrated economists speaking up in favor of the proposal.
"You don't have to be a radical leftist to see why it's a good idea," Bregman wrote on social media. "This is not going to be some kind of socialist revolution. The proposal is about restoring balance to a mixed economy. You could even argue it's about saving capitalism itself from oligarchs like Sergey Brin. I think that's exactly why Nobel Prize-winning economists are coming out in favor of this tax."
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy